Member Blog Post

This is much like the first part, but in this rant I talk about what they should of done with the movie instead of what they actually did. They should of kept the Harry Mason storyline and explored it more. He had a wife that died sometime before the incident, so why not explore that? And why not explore the manifestation of how the monsters and the town came to be? That would make more sense and actually be more silent hill-esque. They didn't do a bad job with the look of the movie, just the story and feel. I never once felt creepy by the story, but when the first game came out, I literally was creeped out by the look and feel. And for those thay say you can't do that, then you don't know movies, because alot of games are seen as "a cinematic experience", which means that they can be done as a movie. And I feel that Silent Hill could of been done this way, not saying the look was bad, but was taken through the wrong approach. There was no feeling of abandonment, claustrophobia or as if something were about to grab you, or the idea of a beautiful gothic landscape that Silent Hill portrays really well.

They also needed to explore what happened before the incident. All they do in the movie is show her have a nightmare and then go to Silent Hill, nothing more. That's not very creative or deep, which Silent Hill is known for being. They should of said several months before the incident, the incident, and then what the game reveals to be. Before I go on with the rest of the story, there's something I will admit. I did get a sappy, warm feeling when they did the infamous " siren scene"- well, the first part of it, at least. I feel that the monsters were only used as scares than actual ideas of the story. FACT: The monsters throughout the games do play a significant role with the whole play of the story. They aren't just nameless beings that slay and kill things. In the movie they batched them in groups, instead of giving a feeling of them walking around in the darkness or if they could actually be somewhere you'd least expect. It was more like a sanctioned event than something organic and real. Only one of the characters actually meant something to do the story and that was The Janitor character. Why couldn't they of done the same with the rest of the monsters? It would of been alot creepier if the character in the movie was subjected to things going bump in the night, rather than just showing up dramatically. People are scared by something that is unknown and then reveals itself, not something that just shows up like an action hero, and if you were actually scared of the monsters or that movie then you shouldn't be watching horror movies at all, because I've seen scarier ideas in other movies.

I think they should of explored some of the story before her nightmares, what happened to his wife, and the emotions happening through the whole experience. And I don't think they actually captured the idea of what Silent Hill really is, as I probably said beforehand. Where was the creepy, you don't know what to expect scenes? They had a few of them, but they seem more of an after thought, rather than actual factors of the initial storyline. And I thought Alessa could of been much scarier than what they portrayed. She was a typical creepy, almost Ring-like girl with horrendous dialogue. " Look, I'm on fire", is not a creepy or even smart line, but something stupid. Another thing they should of explored was the relationship between Dahlia and her daughter, which would of been something interesting. Well, if I can come up with something more, then I will let you know, but that's all I have for now......